Diversity doesn’t break the United Methodist Connection [Guest Post]

There’s still a lot of conversation around the Connectional Table’s recommendations regarding LGBT inclusion in the United Methodist Church (here’s our coverage). While most responses focus on LGBT inclusion, at their core, the recommendations acknowledge that the United Methodist Church is a “unity in diversity” and seeks to make United Methodist polity reflect that reality.

Reflecting on whether a “unity in diversity” is an accurate description of United Methodism, the following is a guest post written by a senior pastor in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Thanks for reading.

====

Homosexuality and the United Methodist Connection

Rev. Brady S. Whitton

The question of whether United Methodist pastors should be permitted to perform same-gender weddings, or whether or not we should ordain self avowed practicing homosexuals is a complex one. Sound historical, biblical, and practical arguments can be made on either side. Good News is correct when they state, “We need to recognize the reality that we – laity, clergy and even the Council of Bishops – are divided and will remain divided” on this issue (Regarding United Methodism’s Future, May 22, 2014).

In a recent blog post, Dr. Ben Witherington suggests that the UM Connectional Table “is prepared to give up on our connectional and covenantal system entirely” with its proposal. Dr. Witherington is an accomplished scholar and exceptional teacher of the New Testament and, I have no doubt, a faithful and committed Christian and United Methodist. I disagree with his suggestion, however, that what holds us together as United Methodists is uniformity of thought and practice, i.e. “if we do this . . . we no longer accept that there are church wide standards for such matters that the bishops of the church should enforce in all the conferences.”

I’ve served seven UM churches in two annual conferences in my 18 years of professional ministry, three in the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference and four in Louisiana. Each of these congregations were similar yet distinct. Each congregation was composed of people who held different political, social, and theological leanings — people who had different opinions about the death penalty, abortion, nationalized health care, women in ministry, etc. — but they were unified by their love of Jesus Christ and, for many, a sense of common identity under the United Methodist banner.

United Methodists pastors too have different opinions about political, social, theological and other issues. There are United Methodist pastors who allow openly gay persons to become church members and those who do not. There are United Methodist pastors who hold to a verbal plenary inspiration view of scripture and those who do not. Our appointive process, although imperfect, has always managed to deploy these different pastors to different churches and through the years I have been increasingly impressed by the ability many show to live with the tension of multiple Christian perspectives.

To suggest that what holds us United Methodists together is uniformity in thought and practice is simply not true.

What we have in common…

So what does hold us together?

In the 18th century, an Anglican Priest named John Wesley and his brother, Charles, were part of a movement of the Holy Spirit that has today grown into many expressions and branches. We have a common heritage and history.

John Wesley took the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church and edited them down for the fledgling Methodist movement in America. Our BOD states, “For generations, the Doctrines and Discipline cited only the Articles as the basis for testing correct doctrine in the newly formed church: the charge of doctrinal irregularity against preachers or members was for ‘disseminating doctrines contrary to our Articles of Religion’” (2012 BOD, ¶103, p 61). We have common doctrinal standards (which we would do well to discuss and revive).

Thirdly, we have a common church governance which is laid out in our Constitution.

I suggest the proposal by the Connectional Table does not strike at the heart of who we are as United Methodists or our connection. It does not change our common history, does not change our Articles of Religion, and does not change our constitution and polity.

I am one who believes we do not have to physically divide over the issue of homosexuality. I have dear friends, Brothers and Sisters in Christ, who I do not agree with on this issue. But we are united in our love for Jesus Christ, and a sense of common identity under the United Methodist banner. I served recently on a Kairos weekend with people who have different views than I do on the issue of homosexuality. The Holy Spirit used us in a powerful and transformative way!

Now there are surely those – on both sides – who will decide not to live with a compromise and will leave the church. In my opinion we will be poorer without them, but they are free to make their choice.

In closing, in one of my congregations there was a married couple who both served in elected public office. One was a Republican, the other a Democrat. As you might expect, they had very different views and practices on a variety of subjects – but they remained faithfully married. My hunch is if there was a political conversation worth hearing it was the one that occurred around their kitchen table!

I love Jesus Christ, and I love the United Methodist Church. I love that beyond a set of basic “ground rules” we are not required to be uniform in thought and practice. I see this as a strength and not a weakness. I hope you can too.

Rev. Brady S. Whitton is the Senior Pastor at First United Methodist Church in Baton Rouge, LA. He holds a B.A. in Philosophy and Religion and a Master of Divinity from Drew University. Brady is married to Dr. Natasha Whitton, who teaches English at Southeastern Louisiana University. Together they have three children ages 10, 7, and 4. When he’s not being a pastor, husband, and dad, Brady likes to collapse and watch a good movie!

Thank you! You speak for me as well. I’ve been a pastor for 19 years and, like you, have served churches which thrived despite polar opposite views on many social and theological issues. I’ve described the beauty of the UMC as having a wide umbrella… Large enough to hold many viewpoints with our unity found in our love of Christ and mission to make disciples.

We are reading many posts these days about staying together regardless of the tremors. But these blithe hypotheses must be read alongside counterpoints to the church’s economic sustainability. We are closing our doors, it seems. Arguments about the readiness of the church to overthrow the marriage tradition are hollow (at this point) and may soon become moot.

So… diversity doesn’t break the UM connection? When diversity becomes a code word for the left normalizing homosexuality in the UMC, then it does most certainly break the connection. To pretend otherwise is simply to engage in the equivalent of doctrinal kabuki.

Are the homophobic statements within our Book of Discipline a part of our core doctrinal beliefs? Even conservative Bishop Scott Jones notes the ambiguity on what in (and outside of) our Book of Discipline rises to the level doctrine and doesn’t go that far. I think this is part of our problem– a single litmus test that determines if one is “orthodox” or “heterodox” as defined by our Good News friends. Not, as Rev. Whitton notes, the long-held standard of adherence to the Articles of Religion/Confession of Faith.
The compromise the Connectional Table offers on human sexuality is truly a via media approach, in line with our Social Principles on abortion and the death penalty. Forcing both the far-left and far-right to live in the tension and nuance. Keeping some of the homophobic language, while removing LGBT persons from being charged for being as God created us is very far from “normalizing homosexuality” (whatever that means).

“Homophobic” is a contrived word. Are you stating that God is homophobic as homosexuality is condemned in both Old and New Testaments? Are homosexuals who disagree with heterosexuals view of sexuality to be considered “Heterophobic”? Is the biblical standard for adultery make those who support that moral view “Adultraphobic”? Considering that certain commands were given ONLY to the Hebrews to set them apart (not blending certain fibers, seeds, etc.) while others were Universal (not to participate in homosexual acts, adultery, etc.), it is poor exegetical work to simply go with the zeitgeist in wholesale acceptance of homosexuality. Now, that being said, The Church should take just as strong a stance against Pastors and congregation members who commit adultery. The genius of the homosexual agenda was removing it from the realm of morality into the realm of “Civil Rights”. Fine, let it be a “Civil Rights” issue but that does not mean that it MUST be an Ecclesiastical Right. The arguments used to support the homosexual agenda and legitimatize it are now being used for pedophilia by Rutgers Law Professor. Where does The Church draw the line? As the UMC Church in Africa and Latin America have stated, “America, you have lost your way!”

Once folks start the slippery-slope arguments, arbitrarily divide Hebrew Bible laws, see “homosexuality” (a word invented in the 1800s) contained within Scripture, and cite discredited studies, there’s truly nothing more I can say. Our worldviews and view of scripture are so different, there’s no middle ground. I hope and pray the majority of General Conference delegates exegete using hermeneutics that do not cause harm to suffering LGBT persons, and are willing to act, to live in the tension, discern and compromise a way through in Christian unity. This, I think, is Rev. Whitton’s point proved.

Our world views are different, precisely because our views of Scripture are different. And Scripture, at least to those who view the Bible as the Word of God, cannot be compromised. At no point in Scripture is homosexual behavior viewed favorably, and at several points it is explicitly condemned. God’s word cannot be broken, and our church will not thrive if we head down this path.

God’s word was unbroken in its placement of women in society. God’s word was unbroken in its acceptance of slavery. God’s word was unbroken in its opposition to divorce. Our understanding of God’s word has been broken open to grace and mercy before–and it will again.

An argument for past error is not an argument for future error. You could just as easily use your argument to contend that adultery will be accepted in the future, or even that Jesus did not die for our sins.

If you believe that homosexual behavior is biblically acceptable, make that argument from Scripture, not by saying (some) conservatives were wrong about slavery or women’s place in the church in the past. After all, (some) liberals were wrong about communism and eugenics in the past.

And divorce is awful. Our church is way too accepting of it. But the difference between divorce and homosexual behavior is that no one who gets a divorce, even those who argue it is biblically acceptable, wants to go through another one.

As I read the post to which you refer, I hear the Reverend Doctor saying that it is fine to believe whatever you wish about these issues, but if you must continue to believe them, you must leave the church or you will be put out of the church. This is the witness of the scriptures and it is nothing more than the Holy Spirit speaking through him. I may suspect to be dismissed because i am from Africa for such an opinion, but is not such a dismissal the same as what you suggest he is doing wrong. I pray that the time is coming when we finally put such matters behind us never to be spoken of again.

I believe I remember Jesus saying something along the lines of, “A house divided cannot stand.” Sadly, Liberal (ooops, sorry, “Progressive”) UMC Pastors might disavow that Jesus actually meant what he said – like other parts of the Scripture that condemn homosexuality.

Friends, there is no end to the argument about who is “right” on this issue, and at this point there’s little point in carrying on the debate. As Wesley once wrote, “Keep you your opinion; I mine; and that as steadily as ever. You need not even endeavour to come over to me, or bring me over to you.” The question for me is: can we United Methodists stay together with such obviously different approaches to scripture? I for one believe we can, and hope we do.

i have a high regard for Ben Witherington, a colleague with a PhD in New Testament, etc. However, his credentials do not give him any authority in regard to his view that uniformity of thought is what holds UM’s together. I also have a PhD in New Testament, etc. and I believe he is simply mistaken. The view expressed by Brady Whitton is much closer to the understanding of the core of United Methodism.

I think the difficulty here is more fundamental, and more historical, than that.

The difficulty is:

1. We receive the Holy Scriptures, not through a direct divine revelation (“Go ye therefore into all the world and print lots of copies of This Book….”), but through tradition passed to us from the Apostles through the Early Church Fathers.

For the canon of the New Testament was definitely not set within the first 250 years of the Christian faith. In fact the earliest canon-list in recorded history which fully agrees with the 27-book New Testament canon we use today is from the Easter Letter of Bishop Athanasius in 370-ish A.D. That’s a good 340 years after the Ascension, folks, and 270 years after the death of the last living member of the Twelve.

2. If, therefore, we accept the 27 books we call the “New Testament canon” to be authoritative for Christians, we are accepting, at minimum, that the Christians who gave us that canon did not utterly misunderstand Christian doctrine and morality. We are accepting that what they preserved and preached for 300-odd years was recognizably Christianity; that the theology and the moral code inculcated by Jesus in the hearts of His Apostles was not lost.

For of course if they did utterly misunderstand major portions of the Christianity they’d received through oral tradition from their predecessors, and they from the Apostles, and they from Christ, then we have no plausible assurance that our New Testament canon is correct.

3. In such a case, it would be very likely that some of the “almost made it in, but were ultimately rejected” books — books which even after they were excluded from the canon, the Church Fathers still considered entirely orthodox in content — should actually have been included. These would be things like the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, or the Didache, or The Shepherd by Hermas, or the letters of Ignatius of Antioch.

Or, it’s plausible that some of the “made it in, but just barely” books were actually included in error, and should have been excluded. This puts James, Hebrews, Philemon, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, bits of Mark’s gospel and John’s gospel, and the book of Revelation into debatable status.

And those were just the “close calls,” the “edge cases.” If we hold that the folks who gave us the canon really misunderstood Christianity, we might have to consider that they weren’t trustworthy at all. Perhaps they shouldn’t have added to the Old Testament canon at all. Or perhaps it should just have been the Four Gospels. Perhaps the Pauline corpus should be taken as the opinion of an early theologian, something like reading N.T. Wright is for modern pastors, who’re liable to take-or-leave different ideas.

4. But, for Christians of the Protestant Reformation, Scripture is how we know what Christianity is. If the canon is not, for all intents and purposes, knowable with sufficient certainty, then the Christian faith in general is, for all intents and purposes, not knowable with sufficient certainty. This puts us in the position of synthetically re-inventing a lost religion, much like those sad “Neo-Druids” who, for lack of any concrete information about Druidism, put on Hollywood-inspired robes and gather at Stonehenge to perform rites derived more from Robert E. Howard books than from any serious historical data.

5. So if we are not to completely throw our hands up and call the whole modern attempt to practice the Christian faith hopeless, we must — to be consistent — hold that the Patristic Era in Christianity had not entirely misunderstood the faith, had not radically added to, or subtracted from, “the faith once for all delivered to the apostles.” That allows us, among other things, to have The Bible.

6. But in that case, we’ll have to consider their judgments about homosexual acts to be reliable. For the fathers were entirely uniform on this topic. They had plenty of exposure to the sexually-permissive Greek and Roman cultures. And they had no truck with it. Quite the contrary: A person who was guilty of such acts — including adultery, or the attempt to divorce from a Christian marriage, not just homosexual acts — would likely be barred from communion for a period of months or years, depending on the circumstances. It would require an absolution from the bishop, to readmit them.

That, I presume, we would consider an early, and probably exaggerated, form of Church Discipline. We could probably write it off as overly strict.

But from the perspective of distinguishing between that which is moral and that which is immoral? The doctrinal implications are pretty plain, aren’t they?

It occurs to me that the reason we’re having this conversation now is because we, denominationally, were unfaithful for the last hundred years, as we became extraordinarily lax on the topic of divorce-and-remarriage. Perhaps THAT was the firewall which, once it gave way, had implications for everything else.

This is the normal evolution of human cultures and subcultures, after all. Decisions which seem limited to one topic (homosexual clergy, gay marriages) have further implications which might take a century to display themselves. What decision, a hundred years ago, got us where we are today? Or was it longer ago than that? Was Henry VIII’s reason for separating from Rome — he wanted to divorce and remarry — the Original Sin of the Anglican Church, and thus, ultimately, of the Methodists?

Was THAT the thing which ultimately divided us from the moral rigor of the Early Fathers…and which precipitated a slide (if X, then why not Y? if Y, then why not Z?) to where we are today?

R.C., I understand what you’re saying and your argent is a logical one. Two questions. One, would you include the ordination of women in the “slide”? Why or why not? Two, I’m one who believes the authority in ecclesial matters ultimately belongs to the living Church, informed by scripture, yes, but not imprisoned by them. We see this interpretive authority exercised throughout the scriptures (Acts 15, Peter’s vision, etc.) Am I wrong? (I’m honestly interested in your answer, not being argumentative.) Thanks.

Q1: RE: Women’s Ordination: I confess that I don’t have a fully-thought-out answer to give you.

Everybody knows the verses from Paul about women speaking, or teaching, or being in authority over men, in the Church. That ground has been so heavily covered that I don’t believe that (to borrow a phrase) I, or an angel from Heaven, could convince either side to give ground on it! What more is there to say about those verses, exegetically?

Now, I suspect that the usual accusation given to explain the all-male ordination of the first 1950-ish years of the Christian faith — cultural sexism, etc. — is mere libel and historicism; that it is eisegesis, not exegesis, of the historical record. I suspect it amounts to us moderns not understanding the minds of our forebears and, instead of trying to get inside those minds, we write off what we don’t understand as error by saying, “Well, they were way back then, and we know so much more than they do.” It isn’t quite as bad as saying, “We’re smarter than St. Augustine because we have iPhones and his generation didn’t,” …but sometimes I think it drifts in that direction.

I say, I suspect that. I don’t know. But Augustine et alia aren’t really around to defend themselves, are they? They’re such convenient targets for whatever accusations we feel inclined to hurl at them. Knowing that they can’t be here to confront their accusers, I’m inclined to give them a lot of benefit of the doubt.

But what does that leave us? If I give the early fathers the benefit of the doubt that they aren’t just a load of ignorant chauvinists, what then?

I think we start by noting that the fathers understood Holy Communion as a sacrificial, and therefore a priestly act, so they viewed the minister officiating it as participating in the priestly ministry of Christ. Just as the Jewish priests had a “share” in the High Priestly ministry of Aaron, so too Christ’s ministers had a “share” in Jesus’ High Priestly ministry. The first Christians, familiar with the foot-washing ritual of priests beginning their temple service, would hear Jesus say, “Peter, if I don’t wash your feet, you have no share in Me” and draw the parallel. And there are lots of other sacrificial overtones, too many to list here.

Anyhow, what do you have to be, to participate in the priesthood of God Most High? Well, in the Aaronic priesthood, you have to be a Levite; but that was always a temporary and, in a sense, punitive, state-of-affairs. (Recall that the limitation of priesthood to the Levites alone was Plan B, instituted after the golden calf incident; and it makes sense that Christ would end that limitation when He comes in order to make Holy Communion among the Gentiles possible.)

But the other thing you had to be was male. Why? Well, not because the Egyptians and Caananites and Philistines were particularly male-centered in religion: They all had priestesses. But then, they all had goddesses. The priest/priestess had to correspond to the deity. In Israel, YHWH spoke through the prophets presenting Himself as a He, as a Father and a Husband. Hence: Priests, not Priestesses, in Israel.

Now in spite of the Anglican roots of Methodism, I don’t think most Methodist pastors see themselves as priests sharing in Christ’s priestly ministry, except in a general “priesthood of all believers” kind of way. (This, remember, also existed in the Old Covenant: Israel was a “priestly people” and a “kingdom of priests”; e.g. Exodus 19:6; but this doesn’t prevent there also being selected individuals called out for priestly ministry, which isn’t open to everyone: See re: Korah’s rebellion!)

So I suspect that the widespread okay-ness with women’s ordination in Methodist circles stems largely from asking the question, “Can women teach, lead, disciple, and so on…?” but from not asking the question, “Are women permitted by God to be ordained as priestesses? Does YHWH have priestesses?”

To put it another way: If you wanted to reflect the patristic attitude while somehow retaining women’s ordination, I think the closest you could get would be a woman who was ordained to do every pastoral duty except Holy Communion, but who had a male come in to do that. The latter would be ordained and consecrated for it: A specialist.

This, of course, is never going to happen. First, Reformation theology tends to contest the priestly character of the Lord’s Supper and the officiant, although the Anglican line takes more of a middle view, with Anglican divines still called “priests.” Second, it has no basis in history: The pastorate and the role of officiating at Holy Communion have never been divided in this fashion. So the traditionalists would hardly be pleased. And thirdly, it certainly won’t please those who think women’s ordination an unalloyed good. It would, in fact, please nobody!

But what do I think?

Hmmm. I think I want to be careful. Is Holy Communion a sacrifice? Well, the fathers seem to think so, as early as the Didache. Actually the Greek term “eucharist” is suggestive: We moderns see this as only meaning “giving thanks” and I think we imagine a prayer of thanks similar to a mealtime-blessing, but among Greek-speaking, Septuagint-using diaspora Jews it was the accepted translation for the todah, the “thank offering” of the Old Testament. Christ is a “priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek”; and what does Melchizedek bring out as a thank-offering in celebration of Abram’s rescue of Lot? Bread and wine.

So if it’s a sacrifice, then to ordain someone to do it, you’re ordaining a priest. So is it okay to have priestesses?

Some say “yes” because they see God as just-as-much Mother as Father; ergo, it’s okay to have priestesses as well as priests. Obviously I don’t believe in a Mormon notion of God the Father having a physical, and physically male, body. But my guess is that God doesn’t present Himself to Israel as a Father and a Husband, repeatedly, for no reason. I would feel some trepidation at “editing God’s mail” by ignoring all that.

And anyway, if the New Covenant ministry is a sharing in the priestliness of Christ, well, Christ is male, even today as He sits at the right hand of the Father. And He is God.

If all this reasoning is valid, then: Women’s ordination is not okay. However innocently intended, it might turn out to be something of a sacrilege, like using Grape Fanta or Orange Juice (instead of red grape juice or wine) for Christ’s blood.

I say, if all this is valid. Obviously it isn’t airtight.

Q2: RE: Authority in the Church:

Another toughie. You say, “I’m one who believes the authority in ecclesial matters ultimately belongs to the living Church, informed by scripture, yes, but not imprisoned by them. We see this interpretive authority exercised throughout the scriptures (Acts 15, Peter’s vision, etc.)”

Do you think that Acts 15 ought to be described as an exercise of interpretative authority? Acts 15’s final decision can’t really be derived from the Old Testament text. If one went by the O.T. alone, any male who wanted to become part of the People of God would need to be circumcised! If the elimination of that requirement is hidden anywhere in the O.T., all I can say is that it isn’t perspicuous.

So from the perspective of the Apostles judging the matter in the proto-council of Acts 15, I don’t think they’re “interpreting” in the sense of doing Scripture exegesis.

So what are they doing?

Well, they say, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us….”

Now, if a pastor gave that justification today to effect some radical change in Christian practice, we’d respond, “Hey, whatever the Holy Spirit says, I’m down with…but what’s this US? Who on earth do you think you are? And come to think of it, why should I believe you when you tell me what ‘seems good’ to the Holy Spirit? Maybe I should let Him speak for Himself, rather than taking your say-so?”

Why do we take that view towards a modern pastor, but not towards the Apostles? I think the answer is obvious: It’s because they’re the Apostles. They had some especially-appointed leadership role in the Church, with authority from Christ. (“He who hears ya’ll, hears Me.”)

So, the Acts 15 decision is accepted by Christians because of who said it and the offices of leadership they held. We wouldn’t accept the same message coming from just any old source. If we did that, what would have prevented us from accepting the messages of Marcion, or Montanus, or Arius?

I think that the Acts 15 decision was binding on Christians because it was an exercise of the judicial power granted by Christ to the Apostles in Matthew 18: What they bound/loosed on earth had already been bound/loosed in Heaven, and when they spoke in union as “the Church” we are to hear it as the voice of Jesus Christ, or else get kicked out of fellowship.

Brady, I’m laying all that foundation, in order to ask the following:

When you say, “I’m one who believes the authority in ecclesial matters ultimately belongs to the living Church, informed by scripture, yes, but not imprisoned by them” …, are you saying that the living Church right now has, within its leaders, an Acts 15 level of authority to make decisions that’ll be binding on all Christians?

That seems a pretty risky thing to claim.

On the one hand, it allows you to have an authority-council in the world today capable of judging women’s ordination, or gay marriage, or just about anything, to be “the new normal” for Christians. It means Christianity isn’t frozen in amber, but can develop over time, not by violating the authority of previous decisions, but by submitting to the legitimate authority of a decision-making Church.

That sounds attractive to a “progressive.” But it has a downside: What if “the Church” rules the other way? Are you going to say, “Well, I thought I was right about Contentious Topic XYZ, but the Church ruled the opposite way, so I guess I must have been wrong, since that’s Jesus talking” …?

And who gets to be on this council? All the pastors? All the bishops? All the bishops of which Church? We’re no longer talking about a council of guys personally chosen by Jesus Christ and granted His authority; we’re talking about people from more than one denomination, and the episcopal consecration of some them is deemed invalid by the others.

It gets worse: If the Church really has, all along, had an Acts 15 level of authority to call a council and assume that council’s decisions come with Divine Sanction…then, on what basis are you disobedient to the Council of Trent?

I believe in a Living Church. But I’m wincingly aware that most Protestants (whatever denomination) don’t have an Ecclesiology to speak of, which is why Protestants also don’t have much in the way of Church Discipline. Until you figure out a Biblical foundation for who gets to have that Matthew 18/Acts 15 authority, any selection of persons for rendering judgment over believers is ad-hoc: We just hope that those being judged don’t look too hard at the claims of their judges to have authority to rightfully adjudicate their cases!

Again, an unsatisfying answer. Sorry I took so long to say it; I hope it’s at least not too boring.

How profoundly and heart-breakingly sad, that the current pastor of First Methodist in Baton Rouge, where my parents married in 1938, thinks it is OK for anyone to pick and choose scripture and doctrine to believe. R.C. is the only one to respond with an historically scriptual perspective. It was at 1st Church at the age of 16, I dedicated my life to Jesus Christ. I am now 74 and a retired educator. I have read and studied the Wesley movement, scripture, the early fathers and global theology all my life. Progressives do such a great job of twisting history and now twisting scripture. These are the same liberal strategies that have removed prayer from school, the Ten Commandments from public buildings, and any hint of faith values from our nation’s history. The secular socialism of the ’60’s & ’70’s creeped into the church with only little things like removing Amen from the endings in the hymnal. Progressives have taken over the upper bureaucratic boards and agencies claiming to be speaking for the grassroot local Methodist. They promote abortion, gender word change of scripture, anti-Israel pro-Palestinian policy which shames the true life long Wesley Methodist. The core scripture that has been twisted now comes to this: The UMC is not only IN this world but definitely OF this world.
Since it is claimed that this diversity promotes unity, do we now all join hands, sing songs and pretend that foundational scripture, doctrine and sacred covenant oaths of ordination have not been broken? Here is a news item that may make liberals happy:http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/new-us-lgbti-envoy-seeking-global-lgbti-rights

That may be what you think you want, but this is what is coming if you get your way:
“One of the proposals for preserving ‘unity’ in The United Methodist Church in the midst of our controversies over same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals is the “Local Option” idea. Proponents claim that this approach would allow freedom of conscience within the church, while allowing all United Methodists to stay together and continue working together to make disciples for the transformation of the world. But would it? Other denominations have taken this approach. One such is the Presbyterian Church (USA), one of the seven Mainline churches.”http://tomlambrecht.goodnewsmag.org/changes-in-pcusa-bode-ill-for-methodism/

Do you even care? You plot and scheme and have hidden agendas in every piece of literature, including the final letter from the COB completing they meeting Germany. But even as the end was drawing near for Jerusalem and the early church fathers were scattered, Rome was defeated because the followers of Jesus Christ carried the Word with them into all the lands. Look what is coming for our Methodist church in America:
According to the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA), United Methodist Church membership in Africa grew at an astounding 11 percent annual rate from 2008 to 2013. For example, there are twice as many United Methodists in the West African nation of Cote D’Ivoire than in the entire eight states that make up the Western Jurisdiction.
At the same time, U.S. membership declined at a 1.2 percent rate over that same four year period. If those rates continue to hold, there will be more members in Africa than in the U.S. by the close of 2016.
This is just once facet of the shifting image of the global nature of The United Methodist Church.
Currently, more than 40 percent of the nearly 13 million-member United Methodist Church live outside the United States in the “central conferences” located in Africa, the Philippines, and Europe. At the same time, United Methodist congregations in the United States financially support 90 percent of the general church budget through apportionment giving. That will all change if legislation is passed at the 2016 General Conference in Portland, Oregon.
“Central conferences want to participate (in giving), and they need a system to do that,” said Moses Kumar, the General Council on Finance and Administration’s top executive.
The Rev. Dustin Petz, a finance agency board member, told the United Methodist New Service that the formula is intended to meet two goals: Increase giving to the general church, and take the first step toward a global apportionment system that works “on a shared, rational and equitable basis.”
“At this point, central conferences voluntarily contribute about $950,000 [out of a budget of 150 million] a year to support the denomination’s bishops,” reported Heather Hahn of UMNS. “Under the proposal, central conference apportionments would contribute to two of the seven general church funds – the Episcopal and General Administration funds. That money supports the work of bishops and the operations of denomination wide administrative bodies, including General Conference.”http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/plan-calls-for-global-funding-of-general-church

Jesus said that divorcees who remarry are living in adultery. So, in the 1940s & 50s the Methodist pastor could not perform a marriage of divorcees, unless it was the innocent partner, etc. Today, a significant percentage of our lay membership are thereby living in adultery; as are many of our clergy.
Yes, Methodist rules, and values do change.
The logic escapes me why the same-sex marriage is shunned, as is any pastor that gives official blessing to same-sex marriage, and yet we do not shun those living in adultery. Why shun one, but not the other?
Perhaps because we understand the church to be a hospital for sinners, not a home for saints.
To generalize that “progressives” on this issue are responsible for removing prayer from schools, Ten Commandments from public buildings, etc. is a failure in logic.
The logical law of equivalency says if your going to shun one (such as same-sex marriage), then you must shun those living in adultery.
Puritans have always shunned. That is their prerogative. But thank God, Methodists have not been trapped in that puritan shunning. In fact, some Anabaptists have joined my congregations simply because we have “open Communion;” Shunning is very serious. Be careful who you shun.
I strongly agree that Brady Whitton is “right-on” in seeing Methodism as a large tent where we can live together, while disagreeing on such issues.
“I’m Methodist born, Methodist bred, and when I die, I’ll be Methodist dead.”
I’m going not going to leave our church, even though I don’t agree with the BOD on the same-sex issue.
Why do some advocate schism because they don’t agree with me, and people like me?
The brilliant, and the not-so-brilliant arguments above reflect our great diversity.
I was baptized by a pastor who was a pacifist in the midst of WW II. I didn’t have to agree with him to love him, to respect him, and to respect his views.
“Differences are not intended to separate, to alienate. We are different precisely in order to realize our need for each other.”
-Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Can’t we just get along?

I know that all people read with their built in bias in operation. Larry above said, “To generalize that “progressives” on this issue are responsible for removing prayer from schools, Ten Commandments from public buildings, etc. is a failure in logic.” Where did I say it was the same “progressives”? I said they were using the same liberal strategies to get what they want~ and they are. Here’s another view point about why they strike so hard at those who stand on scripture.http://blog.precept.org/at-the-core-of-the-gay-marriage-debate/

All the commissions & focus groups in the world do not change the gospel of the Father; Son,& Holy Ghost. Methodism is now plodding down The Apostasy Road as prophesied by Apostle John in Revelation.
When one investigates the disgustingly filthy & unhealthy physical act of duo-male homosexual pseudo-sexual intercourse it becomes evident of it’s non-God creative intent. This a satanic invasion into the soon-to-be pseudo Methodist Methodist church.I will not accept some congregations approve & others do not. I will make sure none of my tithes and offerings get apportioned out to Methodist management to propigate this filthy satanic apostasy.